Spitters v. Spitters, Sr.

Background

Thomas Heaton Spitters filed a complaint against Laurence L. Spitters, Sr., and John Laurence Spitters. He represented himself. He asked to proceed without paying the filing fee and stated that the case belonged in federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. His complaint referred generally to “U.S. Code Title 18” and “U.S.C. Title 15,” alleged violations of the Fourth Amendment, and listed numerous alleged criminal and tortious acts beginning around 1975. He sought $10 million.

Permission to Proceed Without Paying Fees

The court initially denied Spitters’s fee-waiver application because his answers about his employment and income did not provide enough information. After he submitted a clarifying statement, the court found that his assets and income were insufficient to pay the filing fees and granted his application to proceed without paying them.

Screening of the Complaint

Because Spitters was allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee, the court was required to screen the complaint before it was served on the defendants. The court had to dismiss claims that were frivolous, failed to state a legally sufficient claim, or were barred by a complete defense apparent from the complaint.

The court found that Spitters had not established diversity jurisdiction because he alleged that he and at least one defendant resided in California. The court also found that his references to federal law did not clearly establish federal-question jurisdiction. Title 18 concerns federal crimes and criminal procedure, and private individuals generally cannot use federal criminal statutes to seek relief in a civil lawsuit. The court further found that the complaint did not connect the alleged conduct to any specific provision of Title 15.

The court also addressed Spitters’s Fourth Amendment allegations. It explained that the Fourth Amendment generally applies to government action, not conduct by private individuals. Because Spitters sued private actors and had not alleged facts showing the required government involvement, he had not shown federal jurisdiction based on those allegations.

The court found that the complaint also violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, which requires a short and clear statement explaining what each defendant allegedly did and why the plaintiff is entitled to relief. The generalized allegations did not give the defendants fair notice of the specific claims. The court instructed Spitters to identify the specific laws or rights involved, state the facts connecting each defendant to each alleged violation—including dates, participants, and conduct—and explain how he was harmed.

Finally, the court stated that at least portions of the allegations appeared frivolous under the filing-fee screening statute. It cited allegations involving supposed substitute relatives, social-engineering techniques connected to narcotics and prostitution, and defendants pretending to perform administrative work. The court stated that the allegations, as currently pleaded, were subject to dismissal.

Disposition

The court granted Spitters’s application to proceed without paying the filing fee but found that the complaint failed to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). It did not dismiss the complaint then. Because Spitters was representing himself and the court could not conclude that the defects could not be corrected, it gave him permission to amend. The court ordered him to file a first amended complaint by January 16, 2024. The amended complaint had to identify the defendants and claims, state the basis for federal jurisdiction, provide numbered factual allegations, and explain each legal claim separately. If Spitters failed to correct the deficiencies, the case would be reassigned to a district judge with a recommendation for dismissal.